Cause for Concern: Musings on Two Recent Race-Related Events
Derek R. Avery
University of Houston
As the chair of the Committee for Ethnic Minority Affairs (CEMA), it is my responsibility to attend to and raise awareness concerning issues that may be of particular relevance to minority members of our society. In the past, I have made it my general practice to devote this space, The Diversity Report, to discussing theory and applied research falling within that domain. To date, a little more than halfway through my tenure in this role, I have been delighted with the positive feedback my coauthors and I have received from you (the readers of TIP)—thank you! Although I plan to continue in this vein in future columns, today I feel strongly compelled to take a bit of a detour from the norm.
Two recent race-related current events in the United States have really caught and consumed my attention. One has been highly publicized whereas the other has received relatively little media coverage. Although neither directly involves minorities in the workplace or SIOP members, both are relevant not only to CEMA but to SIOP as a whole. The purpose of this column is to briefly review each of these situations and discuss what they mean (or should mean) to us as I-O psychologists.
Racial Diversity in Schools
The Case
The first event pertains to the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision to overturn part of the ruling made in the landmark 1954 Brown v. the Topeka Board of Education case. In that case, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), led by future Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall, represented the plaintiff in challenging the notion that the then mandated racially segregated school system provided equal opportunity to all students. After hearing the case, the high court decided that “separate, but equal” did not work and legally outlawed the widespread practice of racially segregating public schools in the United States. Consequently, school boards were forced to devise and implement strategies designed to produce racially integrated schools. Toward this end, many redrew school districts and engaged in forced busing to increase the proportion of underrepresented groups in racially homogenous schools.
Although these tactics produced considerable change in the wake of the Brown ruling, the desegregation achieved appears to have been fleeting. For instance, a recent study conducted by the Harvard Civil Rights Project reported that school integration peaked in 1988 (Orfield & Lee, 2004) and has declined steadily since then. In fact, in 2002, the percentage of Southern Blacks in majority White schools (one measure of integration) was approximately 30, which is lower than it had been since 1970. In spite of this apparent resegregation, the Supreme Court decided in June of this year to outlaw the use of race as a factor in the assignment of children to public schools. Specifically, it struck down the right of school boards to make racial diversity a strategic objective in student assignment.
The Impact
So what does this mean to us as citizens and, more pertinently in this context, as I-O psychologists? Perhaps the most significant ramification is that we should expect our jobs to become more difficult, irrespective of the particular setting in which we work. Here’s what I mean by that statement. Whether or not we collectively choose to acknowledge it, considerable racial and ethnic diversity is an imminent reality. Immigration, globalization, and disproportional birth rates are creating a far more racially and ethnically diverse citizenship than this country has ever known. Although we, or at least many of us, seem intent on maintaining (and even increasing) segregation as we become more diverse, we can only reach our individual and collective potential by working together. For instance, a well-managed diverse group will likely outperform a comparably managed homogenous group (Ely & Thomas, 2001). Moreover, recent research (Chrobot-Mason & Leslie, 2003) has shown individual multicultural competence, which can be enhanced by structured contact with dissimilar others (Avery & Thomas, 2004), to correlate positively with job performance, promotions, and leadership ratings. Thus, the very things that many individuals deliberately seek to avoid for themselves and their children (i.e., dissimilarity and diversity) are critical to individual development and can help to facilitate organizational success.
In addition, we have volumes of evidence showing that separate but equal schooling simply does not work. In fact, the more segregated our schools become, the larger the disparity in the allocation of school resources (Kozol, 2006). Because funding is a key antecedent of student learning, resource disparities in allocations to racially homogenous schools are likely to translate into perpetuating the widely chronicled achievement gap between minority and majority students (Hanushek & Rivkin, 2006). This begins with racial differences in schooling outcomes and, subsequently, leads to differences in unemployment, job assignments, starting salaries, career trajectories, and career earnings.
The preceding discussion suggests that if you perform I-O-related work in an educational capacity (as I do), greater primary and secondary school segregation will make it increasingly difficult to produce the level of multicultural competence sought by organizations in college graduates (Day & Glick, 2000). It also places an artificial ceiling on the level of racial and ethnic diversity we will see in our college classrooms, which can influence both diversity-related and nondiversity-related learning (Avery & Thomas, 2004; Terenzini, Cabrera, Colbeck, Bjorklund, & Parente, 2001). Alternatively, if you work in an applied setting, prepare to be faced with overcoming the inherent shortcomings in multicultural competence after these individuals join organizations. In addition, the perpetuation of the achievement gap will make it harder for practitioners to find qualified labor needed to properly staff their organizations and clients. Interestingly enough, Justice Kennedy seemed to share my sentiment that, “a compelling interest exists in avoiding racial isolation.” Nevertheless, he cast the swing vote in the 5-4 ruling.
The Jena Six
The Case
The second diversity-related current event that caught my attention concerned the Jena Six. Although nearly everyone reading this likely will have heard about the Supreme Court ruling discussed above, I’m sure considerably fewer are familiar with the Jena Six. Admittedly, my own knowledge of the case is because, in large part, it involves several Black youths from my home state, Louisiana, where Jena is located. After hearing about the case, I find it appalling that there has been such little media coverage of the situation. Consequently, I felt obligated to try to help increase awareness of this tragedy in the making.
Jena is a small town of approximately 4,000 residents in central Louisiana. Last fall, a series of events unfolded at Jena High School raising racial tensions. From the reading of the scarce media coverage and case transcripts, here’s what I’ve been able to determine: The preliminary event seemed to be when a Black student at the school sat underneath what is considered a “White” tree (i.e., one where only White students sat) in September 2006. The next day, three nooses were found hanging from the tree. When the Black students complained about the nooses, the school administrators took no action and deemed the hanging of the nooses as a harmless prank. Accordingly, the Black students staged a protest wherein all of the Black students at the school sat under the tree. The administration responded by calling the police and district attorney (DA), who immediately came to the school and confronted the congregated Black students. According to substitute teacher Michelle Rogers, although the Black students said nothing, the DA (Mr. J. Reed Walters) told them: “See this pen in my hand? I can end your lives with the stroke of a pen.”
Tensions further escalated in the following months. A Black student was badly beaten for attending an all-White party. A White student pulled a gun on a group of Black students at a gas station. The Black students took the gun from him and reported the incident to the police only to be charged with assault and robbery (for stealing the gun). Shortly thereafter, a White student was beaten in a school fight, resulting in a mild concussion. Though the concussion was not severe enough to prevent him from attending a school function the same night, it resulted in six Black students being expelled from school and indicted for attempted second-degree murder and conspiracy to commit murder. These six students—Robert Bailey (17), Theo Shaw (17), Carwin Jones (18), Bryant Purvis (17), Mychal Bell (16), and an unidentified minor—later became known as the Jena Six. Their bonds were set between $70,000 and $138,000 (far more than their families could afford to post) and they face 20 to 100 years in prison, if convicted. In early July, an all-White jury convicted Mychal Bell, the first of the Six to go to trial, in less than 2 days for aggravated battery and conspiracy to commit aggravated battery (both felonies). His public defender did not call a single witness to testify on his behalf. When sentenced, he faces a maximum (which the D.A. has said he plans to seek) of 22 years in prison.
The Impact
So what does a case about a single instance of race-related injustice in a small, southern town mean to us? How is this relevant to the field of I-O psychology? Quite frankly, I see it as a progress, or rather lack-of-progress, marker. That’s not to say there has been no progress. There certainly has been improvement and it has been considerable. Nonetheless, many in our society continue to claim, both openly and privately, that racial discrimination is a thing of the past. Even the staunchest defenders of modern America as a colorblind meritocracy, however, have to concede that this case and its handling are rife with racial bias, thereby demonstrating the fallacy of such a perspective. So, the question is this: Are we to believe that racial bias in the states is limited solely to (a) rural Louisiana, (b) the criminal justice system, or (c) high school students?
Clearly, the answer to the preceding question is no. If we, as a society, will allow individuals to lose their lives (or a significant portion of them) due to the racial bias of another, certainly we must believe that considerably less significant outcomes (e.g., selection and promotion decisions) are likely influenced by such biases as well. Although I could have used any number of recent cases to make this example, I focused on the Jena Six for two reasons. First, I soundly believe more people should know about this case and feel that the lack of media coverage is morally reprehensible. We can, and need to do more to redress this type of injustice. For more on what you can do, please visit this site (http://www.colorofchange.org/jena).
Second, as I-O psychologists, we can either continue being part of the larger problem or become a part of the solution. Rest assured, by saying and doing nothing, we are indeed part of the problem. Without question, racial bias and intolerance exist both inside and outside of the workplace (e.g., Stauffer & Buckley, 2005; Tenenbaum & Ruck, 2007). It is foolhardy to think organizations and the individuals within them can reach their fullest potential in such a state. We cannot continue to focus solely on changing behavior in organizations (i.e., eliminating discriminatory actions) while ignoring the core attitudes and beliefs that underlie such behaviors. Even when we are successful at modifying behaviors, people’s true colors eventually show. For instance, though modern racists may not routinely engage in overt racial bias, when given an excuse (which could be quite subtle), they will discriminate (Brief, Buttram, Elliott, Reizenstein, & McCline, 1995; Brief, Dietz, Cohen, Pugh, & Vaslow, 2000).
Correcting Our Course
Readers who’ve found the facts and arguments presented here to be compelling are undoubtedly wondering what individual I-O psychologists and SIOP as a whole can do about these types of current events. Put another way, what should we do if we don’t like the direction in which we appear headed? Perhaps the first should be to address our own personal issues with diversity. Many of us continue to simply consider ourselves unbiased without taking the time to recognize and deal with our unresolved issues about racial and ethnic groups (others and our own). After we’ve begun to address our own issues, we can be of significantly greater value to others. For example, we can conduct research challenging and debunking myths concerning members of certain groups. We can become advocates of diversity at both our own and our children’s institutions, focusing attention on learning about, as opposed to fearing and avoiding differences. We can create programs designed to help others realize and attenuate their own biases. We can shine light on injustice and ensure that it is labeled as such when it occurs. These are all things that are directly within our control.
I know you probably didn’t turn to The Diversity Report expecting to read this type of article. I’ll be the first to admit that it isn’t the most coherent column I’ve written (despite my best efforts to the contrary). It also isn’t the most scholarly or intellectual. That said, if it can get even two or three people to truly think about what’s going on around us, the meanings of these occurrences, and how we can shape them, it very well might be the most important.
References
Avery, D. R., & Thomas, K. M. (2004). Blending content & contact: The roles of diversity curriculum and campus heterogeneity in fostering diversity management competency. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 3, 380–396.
Brief, A. P., Buttram, R. T., Elliott, J. D., Reizenstein, R. M., & McCline, R. L. (1995). Releasing the beast: A study of compliance with orders to use race as a selection criterion. Journal of Social Issues, 51, 177–193.
Brief, A. P., Dietz, J., Cohen, R. R., Pugh, S. D., & Vaslow, J. B. (2000). Just doing business: Modern racism and obedience to authority as explanations for employment discrimination. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 81, 72–97.
Chrobot-Mason, D., & Leslie, J. B. (2003, April). The role of multicultural competence and emotional intelligence in managing diversity. Paper presented at the 18th Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Orlando, FL.
Day, N. E., & Glick, B. J. (2000). Teaching diversity: A study of organizational needs and diversity curriculum in higher education. Journal of Management Education, 24, 338–352.
Ely, R. J., & Thomas, D. A. (2001). Cultural diversity at work: The effects of diversity perspectives on work group processes and outcomes. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46, 229–273.
Hanushek, E. A., & Rivkin, S. G. (2006). School quality and the black-white achievement gap. Accessed July 24, 2007 at http://www.stanford.edu/group/hebls/HanushekSchool.pdf.
Kozol, J. (2006). The shame of the nation: The restoration of apartheid schooling in America. New York: Three Rivers Press.
Orfield, G., & Lee, C. (2004). Brown at 50: King’s dream or Plessy’s nightmare? Accessed July 23, 2007 at http://www.civilrightsproject.ucla.edu/research/reseg04/brown50.pdf.
Stauffer, J. M., & Buckley, M. R. (2005). The existence and nature of racial bias in supervisory ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 586–591.
Tenenbaum, H. R., & Ruck, M. D. (2007). Are teachers’ expectations different for racial minority than for European American students? A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 253–273.
Terenzini, P. T., Cabrera, A. F., Colbeck, C. L., Bjorklund, S. A., & Parente, J. M. (2001). Racial and ethnic diversity in the classroom: Does it promote student learning? The Journal of Higher Education, 72, 509–531.